Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be fed up of George sodding Osbourne and his Knobbish Ideas

999 replies

avivabeaver · 08/10/2012 11:04

The economy is proving harder to fix than he first thought

Solution- suggest cutting £10bn from the benefits budget and "limit the number of children people can claim for". So- are you supposed to choose your 2 favourite and just feed them then? Or what?

OP posts:
domesticgodless · 08/10/2012 18:38

You could see it as a sort of social cleansing of the urban poor if you like. The effect won't be to stop 'feckless' families in the North East having 3 or more children; their rent will be low enough to 'allow' them to receive benefits for children and still remain within the stated 'fairness' threshold of the UK average wage for 1 person.

SomethingOnce · 08/10/2012 18:40

Outraged Wouldn't it be nicer, though, if there was no child poverty because as a society we welcomed those 'excess' children as we welcome our own, making sure they have food, shelter and healthcare, and access to an education that allows them to become what we might wish their parents to be?

After all, you do need people to keep a country ticking over and we can't expect to keep pinching hard workers from other countries indefinitely.

SadPanda · 08/10/2012 18:42

Also, arguably Sweden isn't even really socialist anymore, with the election of a moderate government they are even talking about......gasp.....privatisation

It'll never happen. They'd have to give up SystemB first and the shock would kill off the entire population. :o

thedogsrolex · 08/10/2012 18:43

dwp don't take child maintenance into account anymore, which worked well for me as a lone parent. I dont think it's right but there were so many fuckups...in past times if the nrp was paying they'd deduct it from the rp benefit, but then the nrp wouldn't pay so the rp would be left short.

sort the effing csa might be a good option.

purplepenguin86 · 08/10/2012 18:43

HappyMummy - I claim benefits and run a car. I didn't realise that was seen as a terrible thing to do. I have a car because I live in the middle of nowhere, and we have no public transport - there are literally two buses a week that go to my village. If I could get around without a car then of course I would - my insurance/MOT/tax/repairs etc etc use the majority of the money I get in benefits, but I have no real alternative. The only other option would be to move to a town, where I would have less need of a car and therefore be able to use public transport. Which I would do, but that would mean claiming housing benefit, which I don't at the moment, as I am able to live with my parents (which at 26 is not ideal). So I think spending my benefits on running a car is the best case scenario as far as I'm concerned.

People make assumptions that everyone on benefits is out to get everything they can, and that's just not the case. Of course some people are, like some people evade paying their taxes, but it isn't far to make a mess generalisation. I don't smoke, drink, go out etc - my car is the one thing you could call a luxury, but living where I do it is more of an essential. And I don't have children. Genuinely interested what people think I should be doing if running a car is so frowned upon?

Orwellian · 08/10/2012 18:44

The government should just announce that in x number of years time, child benefit and child tax credit will be reduced and only pay for up to 3 kids. This would give those in receipt of these benefits enough time to find work or to balance their outgoings, in the same way that all those middle income earners who have lost or are about to lose their child benefit/child tax credits have had to do. Nobody gives a shit about the kids of the working middle who pay a whopping amount of tax and don't necessarily have a lot to live on after tax (especially in London, a £40k or £50k salary is not a lot once housing has been paid for).

Viviennemary · 08/10/2012 18:45

The main reason for spiralling rents is the huge subsidies given to greedy landlords by housing benefit. The situation in London is totally ludicrous.

flatpackhamster · 08/10/2012 18:46

SomethingOnce

Outraged Wouldn't it be nicer, though, if there was no child poverty because as a society we welcomed those 'excess' children as we welcome our own, making sure they have food, shelter and healthcare, and access to an education that allows them to become what we might wish their parents to be?

Since we're wishing for magical lovely things that are utterly impossible in the real world, I'd like to be a passenger on the first FTL colony ship.

expatinscotland · 08/10/2012 18:46

'How many non-resident males claim child benefit? '

So what if they don't? Child benefit isn't enough to support a child a person creates.

greeneyed · 08/10/2012 18:47

Okay I'll go with giving people chances to make mistakes so long as they have the same chances to make a success but they don't do they..

flatpackhamster · 08/10/2012 18:49

expatinscotland

So what if they don't? Child benefit isn't enough to support a child a person creates.

The thread is about child benefit and the removal of that benefit. And you proposed an idea to target the one group of people who're unaffected by the benefit and can't be targeted for its removal.

Yes, they're scumbags to do what they do, but saying 'Whataboutthemeeennnnnnz' doesn't advance the discussion.

domesticgodless · 08/10/2012 18:49

I'd also be interested to know how many of those on here coming out in strong support of capping benefits for 'large' families also think that abortion would be limited. I guess quite a few.

How do you square that? You want the scrounger children to be born.... but then it's ok to let them starve because it was the parents' (read mother's) choice to conceive them anyway? (Because we all know that contraceptives never fail, good people never make mistakes, and men never pressure vulnerable women into unprotected sex).

Before people jump on the last comment here's an example of what I mean by vulnerability. A friend adopted a three year old boy. His mother was learning-disabled and had 5 children one after another by a married non-learning-disabled man who used to 'visit' her; to my mind clear sexual exploitation of a vulnerable woman. My friends' son was as far as I know the only one of the family adopted as she was coping just about ok with the others (so the social worker reported).

I expect that many on here would think that this woman should be sterilised 'for her own good' but would they agree that one of her children should not 'count' for benefits purposes? What of the frankly disgusting father? What is he to be forced to do in order to ensure the children's welfare?

To get support from him she will have to PAY the CSA to take action against him. How is a learning disabled woman to be expected to do that?

flatpackhamster · 08/10/2012 18:50

greeneyed

Okay I'll go with giving people chances to make mistakes so long as they have the same chances to make a success but they don't do they..

You're not even giving them a chance to try. You're just treating them like children. It's quite patronising - a sort of Victorian 'raising up of the noble savage' idea.

domesticgodless · 08/10/2012 18:50

abortion should be limited, pardon my typing

Glitterknickaz · 08/10/2012 18:51

Yet still nobody answers why it is necessary to drag people with disabilities and their carers into the cuts?

expatinscotland · 08/10/2012 18:52

'The thread is about child benefit and the removal of that benefit. And you proposed an idea to target the one group of people who're unaffected by the benefit and can't be targeted for its removal.'

No, it isn't. It's about cutting £10bn from the welfare budget as a whole. And it seems to be a very common scenario that a person leaves his/her partner or spouse and their children, then pays nothing towards those childrens' support, leaving the other parent to rely signficantly on the welfare state.

Since this is being targetted, how about targetting people who don't pay to support children they procreate after they leave a relationship as well?

charleybarley · 08/10/2012 18:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Fishwife1949 · 08/10/2012 18:52

How about you get less money for each child you have just like with CB

domesticgodless · 08/10/2012 18:53

Glitterknickaz, cos everyone is supposed to know that responsible individuals do not give birth to disabled children?

Strangely, more of those will be born if the Tories get their way and the abortion limit is reduced to 20 weeks. I guess their feckless parents should have done a full risk assessment before they did the dirty deed.

Viviennemary · 08/10/2012 18:54

If your boss won't give you a rise if you have more children, is it his or her fault that your children go hungry. Of course not. People have to take responsibility.

Viviennemary · 08/10/2012 18:55

Glitter what are the cuts to people and their carers. Maybe somebody would answer if they knew wht they were going to be.

thedogsrolex · 08/10/2012 18:56

and noone answers my question either....maybe if there was a better system to actually get fathers to pay for their children....nah never mind.

Fishwife1949 · 08/10/2012 18:56

expatinscotland well its a nice thought but LABOUR cocked up the CSA big style the whole thing would need to be shut down every child written off then start again

domesticgodless · 08/10/2012 18:57

Vivienne, disability-related benefits are included in the benefit cap. Employment and Support Allowance has replaced Incapacity Benefit and Atos are now busily reclassifying everyone fit for work unless they are basically in a coma. This means that if you have children and become chronically sick or disabled, you are rather more than f*ed. Where have you been these last few months???

bialystockandbloom · 08/10/2012 18:58

SadPanda "Rising levels of autism is a fallacy. Diagnosis levels are on the increase but prevalence studies conducted in the UK since autism was first identifie are consistent. The same number of people have it today as 60 years ago, they're just more likely to be diagnosed now."

Off-topic but what are you basing this on? AFAIK the reasons for the rise in diagnoses is still under debate (prevalence/diagnostic criteria/identification).